W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-httpbis-content-disp-02

From: Eric J. Bowman <eric@bisonsystems.net>
Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 19:01:54 -0600
To: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20101002190154.2be22278.eric@bisonsystems.net>
Adam Barth wrote:
> 
> 1) It looks like the disposition-type is actually optional, even
> though it's required by the grammar.
>

There's nothing wrong with C-D for HTTP having stricter requirements
than general-purpose MIME C-D.  Over time, browsers would no longer
need to support servers which don't send it.  I'd support changing the
draft language to deprecate treating it as optional.

> 
> 2) It looks like the user agent is supposed to URL-decode the
> filename:
> 
> Content-Disposition: inline; filename="abc%20de.pdf"
> => abc de.pdf
> 
> Appendix C.4 seems to indicate that that this is implemented by IE and
> Chrome.  From the comments in the file referenced above, it seems this
> is important for the Asian market.
>

While that may be a valid stakeholder concern, what about all the times
I've used wget to dump a website from a Windows server to a UNIX server?
In which case I specifically don't want the spec instructing the user
agent whether or not to decode; it could be a CLI option.  User agent !=
browser, browser market concerns aren't always relevant to how HTTP is
used in reality.

-Eric
Received on Sunday, 3 October 2010 01:02:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:27 GMT